Sunday, July 19, 2015

Statement Analysis: DeOrre's Parents' Interview Part One

The following is statement analysis of the interview by the parents of missing toddler, DeOrre, who went missing this past week in Idaho. This is Part One Was DeOrre kidnapped?Did the parents do something to him?Did wildlife get him?Did he drown?Was DeOrre a victim of ongoing child abuse, especially neglect. Did he meet an accident, only to have someone cover up what happened?

Statement Analysis is in bold type and we are in debt to Juliet for transcription.

There has been much speculation on this case, and the analysis of the mother's 911 call did not indicate deception. This opinion is limited to the 911 call only . We will listen to what she says here, although her husband did most of the talking. She has told media that she will search "until he is found", which is different than what guilty people sometimes say, including "I will never stop searching", and "we will search our entire lives for you", indicating that they have no expectation that their missing loved one will ever be found.

Analysis Question:This analysis will not be heavily detailed, but will focus specifically to learn if either parent, or both parents, possess guilty knowledge of their son's disappearance. This is our analysis question:Do the parents possess guilty knowledge of their son's disappearance?Beneath this, we look for signals of veracity and deception. It can be that parents can be innocent, yet still deceptive, for example, if they delayed calling 911, or were using drugs and neglected the child, and other attendant issues. We also look to see how the parents relate to the missing child, linguistically, and if there is any change in how they relate to him. We listen carefully to the pronouns.

Interviewer: Alright, DeOrre, take us back, was it Friday?Jessica: Yes.

DeOrre Sr:.i'm not sure what day it is today!I : today's Monday.

This is not expected as "the clock" and "D-Day" are often very important to the hormone-elevated parents. The exception may be due to extreme fatigue. Generally, the loved ones are on high alert, and know exactly how many hours, including days, that the loved one is missing.

J: It was Friday.D: Friday, about 2.26 was when I, was it 2.26?

This is to assert an exact time, while not remembering the day of the week. Should the same parent know exactly the hours (culmalative) the child has been missing ?

J: It was 2.36 when I called.

She corrects him with precision. It is likely that someone looked at the cell phone to note the precise time, perhaps in preparation for the interview, or due to the "clock" ticking, concern. We let the words guide us towards a conclusion.

D : 2.36 when she called and I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it. So I, she got very very lucky. I was blessed that she was able to get service because I didn't think, I didn't want to try and risk getting half way through my talking to 911 and have it cut off. So I went down to where I knew I could get a little service, about a half mile down the road. The interview is with both parents seated next to each other; therefore, the use of "we" is appropriate. With this established, when either parent moves from "we" to the pronoun "I", it becomes even more important to the subject. (For new readers, the "subject" is the one speaking). We have an extreme point of sensitivity and it is about the father being inside the truck. Let's explore this.

We note that the father, "D", explains why he did something without being asked. This indicates a need to explain why he drove in his truck. This means that he thought to himself, "I better explain why I was in the truck because they are going to ask me about it."

Therefore, we assign the reason why someone did something only when not asked, to the color blue which is the highest level of sensitivity in analysis. Should we find two colors of blue close together, the sensitivity becomes extreme to the subject. We will get to this. First: The exact time was off and was corrected by the mother. He did not remember the day, but used the word "about" when giving the exact time. There is nothing "about" when stating "2:26" as "about" is used to estimate. We use estimation with round numbers, and round times. "It was about 2:30" is consistent. "About 2:26" not only shows preparation, (and failed memory or communication) but to say "about" shows the inconsistency of using estimation and exactness. The time when police were called is a sensitive topic, but this is not as sensitive as the truck. The Truck

Please note: placing himself in his truck is very important to the father, so much so that he twice explains why he was in the truck. This is very sensitive to him, as is the time line. Why is it so important to him that we, the audience know, he was in his truck?Even without training, the journalist should recognize his need to explain and his repetition and simply ask about the truck again. With training, the interviewer pounces, but even without, many recognize the sensitivity intuitively. That he was "hauling" is not only unnecessary to say (no one would consider this a leisurely drive) but it is also 'story telling', which is to make us consider the location of the emotions within his statement. The father in the truck has produced intense sensitivity in his language.

Uh, we searched for - after about twenty minutes in a dead panic, not knowing where he was in such a small area, and not knowing, never being there, I knew I was in trouble.

He began with "we searched" indicating unity, but then gives an 'editorializing', or inclusion of emotion ("dead panic"). The emotion here is not necessary since the child is missing.

Emotions in the "logical" portion of a statement are often put there artificially unless something has caused the subject to debrief and process the emotions. What causes emotions to enter due to processing?a. the passage of time. When enough times passes, it becomes more difficult to conclude "artificial placement" of emotions. In truthful accounts, especially fresh, or told for the first time, the emotions come in the "after" portion of the statement. Such as:I could not find him;we searched everywhere in the area;I called 911. I was in a panic. This shows that the emotions take time to process, especially since parents are on "auto pilot", that is, zoned to find their child. What it makes us wonder is if they really were in a "dead panic", or they wish to convince us that they were. We look for their words to guide us, and for the journalist to ask. b. The repetition of the account. Once the account has been told, emotions have had time to settle in, and in repetition of an account, the emotion is then sometimes added in the "logical" portion. I do not know if this father has repeated this account enough times to have processed emotions. I do not think enough time has passed, by this point, so my question has to do with how often he has repeated this account. "dead panic", however, is not a word ("dead") we expect a parent of a missing child to use. "I knew I was in trouble" is an interesting statement. Is this an admission of guilt and worry over oneself, or is it the words of a father taking responsibility, ultimately, for his son's plight?Some very responsible parents will take full ownership and responsibility of the situation, making his son's disappearance his own trouble. It is also possible that this is 'leakage', that is to say, he, himself, is in trouble.

Um, so wedecided to call search and rescue, uh, and that's when I drove down.

"Um" is a pause, giving one time to think. In working from experiential memory, is this necessary?Next, "we decided" shows both the unity of "we", but also that they 'came to a decision', which is to say: There was a delay in calling for help. I never like "we called" therefore, whenever I have heard it, I asked, "Did you both call?" as I want clarification. It is possible that both called, or two calls were made, but I want this to be clear. I have found, too often, "we called 911" to be in the language of the guilty as only one called, and the one who made the call, uses "I", but the other, the guilty, may wish to be seen as "part of the innocent" person's cooperation with police. This goes for all sorts of crimes. Please note that when a child goes missing, there will be sensitivity indicators, as well as even signs of guilt, in both innocent and guilty parents. We seek to discern the difference via context. For innocent parents, there is also an expectation of minimization. To have a child go missing some adult must have been neglectful, in most all situations. For a child to go missing, highly responsible adults will blame themselves, even when the child did not go missing on said adult's watch. This is because the highly responsible adult will hold herself, for example, responsible for letting the neglectful person watch their child in the first place. Years ago, Kyron Horman went missing. Statement Analysis indicated step mother Terri Horman for deception and this deception was specifically about what happened to Kryon. Desiree Young was Kyron's biological mother, who blamed herself, as responsible mothers do, even for getting sick, and being unable to care for him, which is how he ended up in Terri Horman's hands. We must be on our guard for natural minimization and guilt, in the innocent parent's language. That "we decided" not only suggests a delay (during the 'debate') but likely due to fear of, first, over-reacting ("he's got to be here!), and, possibly, fear of being blamed. There was a delay in calling and they initially did not "agree" about making the call. Fear of being blamed is also something that shows itself, in the specific sensitivity indicators, and must be categorized in context.

"we" turns into "I" when driving; that is, likely driving without his wife.

I do not know who "search and rescue" is: is this the result of calling 911, or did they have another number, specific to Search and Rescue?Next, "that's when" speaks to time. He returns to the truck, further making this a very sensitive point to him. The truck, the truck, the truck...it is repeated in his language, and it is something that is of great importance to him and even includes editorializing language, which often belies the need to persuade.

She tried getting a signal out - um, as soon as I got a hold of the,, I kind of, they told me that she was on the other line with them and they had our location, and they were on our way. They, they were amazing, they are amazing and they still continue to be. Ah, Lhema High County Sherriff and Salmon Search and Rescue, you could not ask for a better group of people, volunteers, and search and rescue, and just everybody. You couldn't ask for better people - so sincere, so concerned, and they were - everybody was emotionally attached to this, as you, anybody would be of a two year old.

Lots of self censoring by him as seen in broken sentences. This is to stop himself, mid sentence. Is this his normal habit, as a "baseline", or is it specifically triggered by the topic?

a. "Tried" in the past tense, often indicates failure.

b. Praise of authorities.

This is something that is not expected at this time. Parents want their child found. When not found, they see authorities as having "failed" them, and it is not time for praise. When do we find praise of "authorities"?1. We find that authorities are praised by the innocent when the child is found safe.2. We find that authorities are praised by the innocent parent when the child is found no longer alive, after a long period of time has passed, and the parent has significantly grieved and processed the trauma, and recall, at moments of sheer terror, kind faces, or the 'small cup of water' offered in consolation. This is similar to language in parents who outlived their child, and warm themselves with memories of the wake or funeral, and remember the kind comments of friends and relatives. It generally takes time, however, to hear this. 3. We find the praise of authorities who fail to find a child by the guilty (those indicated for deception regarding the disappearance of the child): the guilty did not want the child found, hence, the praise. 4. We find the praise of authorities who fail to find a child in the language of the guilty who reveal a desperate need to "make friends" with "police" (that is, "authority") and quickly align themselves. They sometimes even "name drop", and talk about how good "Sgt. Smith" was, and so on. This can belie a need to be seen as 'part of the solution' rather than the cause of the problem. See the analysis of Brooks Houck, where on the Nancy Grace Show, he answered criticism for not searching for Crystal Rogers with both name- dropping and his own behind the scenes, searching, reminiscent of Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson. The father may have been treated well, but because at the time of this statement, his son had not been found, the praise is not expected. "Was attached" may indicate that he is thinking of the specific time period during the search; this is evidenced in how he breaks up time period of them being "amazing" including the future. The praise of unsuccessful searching is concerning. Next: How will the father relate to his son?We will listen carefully on what names, pronouns, etc, he uses. We will listen carefully to see if his son is described in a a. positive light (expected) b. negative light (guilty parents will find a subtle way to blame the victim)c. deified, or "angelic" manner. This is sometimes done, romanticizing about a child which is more associated with death, where the parent loses the reality that exists in all of us, as the imperfections are forgotten, and the deceased is now deified in language. When a child is missing, we do not want to hear the child blamed, nor defied.

He's pretty small for his age but he moves pretty good, and thatwas our concern.

a. That he is "pretty small" is not a negative, as it is 'rebutted' by the word "but", in describing how well he moves. b. Note next that he uses the word "that", which is distancing language; andc. He uses the past tense "was"Taking the distancing language of "that" and the past tense "was", it suggest that this is not his concern, any longer. d. Next note that this is not his concern but "our" concern. "He's pretty small for his age but he moves pretty good and this is my concern..." or even "this is our concern";Question: Has anything changed that has led the father to believe that he no longer left the area on his own?If so, (kidnapping), the past tense use here is appropriately consistent. Thus far, there is nothing within the language to indicate child abuse on the part of the parents. This does not mean guilt or innocence, but of how they relate to their son indicates quality of relationship. It does not preclude a kidnapping, nor does it preclude an accident and cover up. It simply shows that there is not a signal *yet* that the child was unwanted. See Baby Ayla analysis to indicate ongoing, chronic child abuse and neglect.

He, uh, was right with us, where it's at, I mean I thought it would be perfect to go camping there because it's enclosed by walls and mountains, and there's not much space around there he could go, and our biggest concern was the creek, which was knee deep and a few feet wide, but he's a little guy.

The need to explain the location is sensitive and this may be the words that are consistent with very responsible parents. It may be that he blames himself for choosing this location, therefore, he feels the need to explain (justify) its choosing: enclosed by walls and mountains (positive) and not much space (negative; what there isn't)."Our" concern is consistent with above. Note that context of the concern is the creek, and he is specific about it, its depth and its depth in relation to his son's size. Thus far, he has not used his son's name, only using "he", but here he is a "little guy", which is consistent with being small for his age, and the concern about the water. "He" is used and we must make note that, in context, most of the information from the father is about the search and not his son. The volume of words is carefully looked at:

Um, they finally, yesterday, we were able to put that to rest and have HC Sheriff Dave and the rest of the sheriffs have put out that there is, they assured me, there is 100% chance that he is not anywhere in that water, around that water. They have torn that creek upside down and in and out. The divers have gone through with wetsuits, along with the helicopter - that was the world's most advanced search and rescue helicopter, volunteered out of Montana, and those guys were just amazing, the accuracy they had with the night vision ability it has and the heat range it can see,, they were - . The one guy, I can't remember his name, um, I've met so many people, so many good people, but he was - his own safety, he was, he was more or less,, he was strapped in, he was on the side of that helicopter, looking, and I - he was looking down. I remember them telling me they asked search and rescue to look over, because there was an orange insect repellant can, they think by the bank, and they were dead on, that's what it was, how accurate these guys are.

Follow the pronouns: When he says "they", he immediately stops himself and says "we", connecting himself to authorities. Here we have additional information that is related to the above praise of authorities. He gives a detailed view as to why he called this "amazing";He worried about the water (creek) to the point where he conceded that the place was safely chosen with it being an exception, yet even comparing it to his son's body size. The searching of the creek impressed him, including what sounds like a man hanging from a helicopter "his own safety" being in his language. He gave specific details about night vision, heat range, and his language indicates that it may be that the technology "amazed" him more than the people, operating the technology. The praise of authorities in an unsuccessful search is not expected. Was it, perhaps, the coming together of his own fear of the water for his son's small size, coupled with the technology employed, along with the relief of knowing his son did not drown, that caused this praise?We must consider the different possibilities while seeking to be guided by his own language. We also note the word "dead" again in his language. Here, from a helicopter, the technology located a small can and in describing its accuracy, they were "dead on."This is his second use of "dead" and it may be part of his baseline language. First "dead panic" and here "dead on" are both not words expected, but they may be a normal part of his linguistic code of expressions. We have not heard him use his son's name. This is not expected, but in context, thus far, the priority of the father's words is upon the search efforts, therefore, little has been said about his son, leaving us without much to measure, thus far, about his son, in terms of how he relates to him, linguistically. The word "son" and "daughter" are critical in child abuse cases, as well as missing children cases. We find that guilty parents will sometimes avoid using "son", and especially "my son" while the son is in 'danger' in the statement. "Our" son is acceptable when two parents are seated together, but "my son" is stronger especially if the context is danger, uncertainty, etc. Some guilty parents will avoid "my son" until the child is "safe", that is, "in heaven" or "no longer suffering" but during the period of time of the crime, or the period of time when the child was "missing", sometimes the parent will avoid this use, especially if it is before the child was killed. We can have a bizarre reversal of this, as Casey Anthony comes to mind, but perhaps a good example for Statement Analysis readers and students is:Interviews of the mother of "Baby Lisa", Deborah Bradley. See especially her first interview with media. She avoided using Lisa's name, as well as "my daughter" or "my baby", to an extreme level of distancing language.

J: They thought it was, it might have been, a part of a shoe, or something, but they said, go check that out.D: These guys search miles, so the miles radius they have - it's very rocky terrain, it's very open, it's not -.the helicopter they used is used to back very deep Montana, it is designed for a lot worse situations than this, and there was not a trace of my son found - there still isn't but the search is on, that's - the hearsay of things has kind of gotten way out of hand, the search is so far as it's been put on, that it's been suspended, and that is not entirely sure or true. Sheriff Dave of Lhema HC, I just spoke with him on the phone this morning - he has got horseback riders and trackers up there right now, and very advanced professionals. I'll be going up, and I've just come down to get any resources I can get to go back, right on back up today. Um, what questions do you guys have?

Please note that he says "my son" while the child is not found. This is to take ownership with "my" and "son" (title) during the time when we find guilty parents moving away from their child.

He continues to rave about the efficiency and adds horseback riders to the helicopter and use of technology, further giving linguistic indication of why has was "amazed", that is, to praise authorities. This is an example of letting the subject speak for himself. We were not expecting praise because his son is not found, but he explains the praise, not for failure, but for:a. thoroughnessb. relief that he, himself, did not cause his son to drown in choosing the locationc. technological wondersd. scope (largeness) and coordination of the various arms of the search He addressed the "hearsay" that the search had been called off. He is bothered by "hearsay."Let's examine this. When parents are bothered by "hearsay" or "rumors" or "social media suspicions", it is often a red flag. Innocent parents react little; while guilty parents can go to extremes to counter public opinion, such as being humiliated on the Nancy Grace Show because of being exposed for lying, but still returning. (See Billie Jean Dunn). Here, he is bothered by it, but what is "it"?"It" is the "hearsay" that the search for his son is called off. This is the context of being bothered. The topic justifies the reaction: if the public hears the search has been called off, the public will no longer search. The reaction is justified. Had it been rumors that he was responsible, our expectation would have been that he issue a Reliable Denial. (please see explanation of Reliable Denial via search at this blog). The father then asks if the station has any questions. This shows an openness and willingness to answer anything. Please note that guilty parents often seek to exercise control over the flow of information. This sometimes shows itself in desperation. We have the positive (innocent) use of "my son" by a father, who is speaking with his wife present. This is very strong. We do not have him speaking much about the child, but continues his focus of language upon the search details. Interviewer: Tell us a little bit about, first of all, how are you guys holding up? I know everybody, a lot of people, are praying for you all.DeOrre Sr.: Friends and family, and hoping to be strong for him.Jessica:. Pretty...the support around us is what's, I know, keeping us together because if we didn't have all of our family - the minute I called my mom, and she was up there in a matter of hours and the same with the rest of our family, they were just up there, around us.D: Luckily, we - a few phone calls Is all it took at first, and we had, as Sheriff David said in the news, a hundred and seventy five plus people up there in the grid searches, volunteers, uh, professionals, and anybody I called. The service up there is very hearsay - here, there - it's camping, you know. Um, we're trying to hold up the best we can, but with - we have hope, is the thing. Hope is what keeps it going because the search is not over, the search is not done. We will find him, no matter what.a. He continues to be impressed with the search, and here gives the large number in the turn out. b. Note the drive behind the search. "The search is not over. The search is not done. We will find him, no matter what" with "we" coming in the same answer as "one hundred and seventy five plus people"When a parent tells us that they will "never stop searching", we should believe that they have no expectation of recovery.

I: You were in the truck so you were the first to realize, ' Oh, no, DeOrr is not here.'D: No, we both did, I -J: We both did.Recall "we decided" is something that indicates a delay, a possible debate or discussion and the joint sharing of responsibility. This is a sensitive point to them both. There is likely strong guilt but not necessarily guilt for causing the disappearance. D: After twenty minutes of up and down the creek and up and around the camp, and he wasn't there, that's when I got in my pick up truck and drove down the road to try and get some service.J: - especially after screaming his name, we have nicknames for him, no sound of him, no crying.This is an important point about the mother:Everyone (or most everyone) has nicknames for their toddler. Did you notice that the mother has no need to quote herself using the nicknames?this is very important. The use of nicknames in a statement can indicate a bad relationship, similar to one reporting, "I said, 'I love you' and kissed them goodnight" does in a police statement. objection: How can such a thing as "I love you" and "kissing them goodnight" indicate a bad relationship? I say that and I kiss my kids!Answer: We all do, or in Maine, "so doesn't everyone."The difference is is that those who feel the need in a police statement to make a point of declaring their love and affection belie a poor or strained relationship as seen in the need of boasting. You likely tell your kids you love them and kiss them goodnight but you likely do not feel the need to press this point home in a statement given to police as a point of "proving" how much you love them. The need to persuade, itself, indicates weakness. In Statement Analysis, we deal, not with reality, but verbalized perception of reality.

D:.he's a goer and a mover but he does not go away from his parents, he does not.This is a positive and actually not an insult as he both praises his ability to move, and recognizes that he doesn't drift too far from his parents. Neglected children are often praised by their neglectful parents for having zero stranger anxiety, with the negligent parents noting how "independent" the child is. In this case, a guilty father would be sabotaging his alibi of kidnapping in this statement. Since DeOrre has not been found, and kidnaping is a possibility, it would be more consistent with guilt if the father and mother both said, "he would run off with someone."They do not. Note the mother's affirmation:

J: Yes, he's very attached to us.I like this better than "we are very close" not because the closeness can be a two-way street (it is) but because:a. she is talking about her child's behavior while missingb. She shows no need to include herself, as parent, to the attachment c. His age is very young and utterly dependent upon an adult for survival.

I: So this is unusual.D: Very unusual, sir.Both shoot down the alibi of kidnapping. J: And we didn't hear people around us, we didn't see anybody, we have -Off camera: social media, that needs to be addressed.I: Yes, social media can be a good thing but it can also -D: That's, that's one of the -J:.We just don't want anything to twist itI: Yes, we don't want to twist it, so clear up any rumors that you've seen or heardJ: We've-Off camera [inaudible] - we need to talk about -J: One thing that concerned me -D: We wanna get to that. Most of the biggest rumors that are going around is - I mean, I have heard everything from the - I mean, why you would make up a rumor that has to do with a three year old is - if you're not going to help, please, don't - if it's not helpful - it's -J: Yeah.D: This is a two, almost three year old we're talking about, please help us. But I've heard everything from my company won't let me come home off the road to look for my son - I was there the entire time, and my employer, four hours after my son went missing, has been up there day and night, has not slowed down - um, and that, that one bothered me, and then they just came, they got worse, and they got worse, and they got worse - but that's a handful of bad with a bunch of good. The amount of support is overwhelming, and it's good.

"Please help us" comes in the context of social media; and social media had reported the search was called off. This directly ties in the concern that people would stop searching with the plea for help.

Note the concern about his company being slandered bothered him, as well.

Question: What, in his language, is "good"?

Answer: the amount of support, being overwhelming, is good.

Interviewer : is there any rumors or anything you've seen that you want to clear up, Jessica?As in all missing child cases, it is better to ask, directly, about their own involvement, to let them issue a denial. Jessica: I just, somebody at the store, um at Leador, said, it was one of the ladies that had worked at the store, said that they saw, um, a gentleman and a younger blonde boy matching our description of our son, really filthy, buying candy for him, and he was just bawling, in a black truck. That is the only other...

DeOrre Sr.: There's a problem, my pick-up truck is black..

This is an unexpected statement. Is he saying this is a problem because he was seen driving his son, filthy, buying candy or is it a problem simply because it does not make sense?

Jessica: he drives a black truck.

DeOrre Sr.: as a family, we went down to get a few things. It was me, but they claim it was at six o clock...that afternoon, evening, but we..were...

Jessica: Earlier, it was earlier that day

DeOrre Sr.: ..with search and rescue until what, a quarter to four..?

Jessica: yeah..

DeOrre Sr.: we didn't, we never, haven't left the camp since one o clock that afternoon, so it's just a lot of hearsay, and..

interviewer: was anybody camping round you?

D: that we don't know is...I come to find, I didn't know the area, and I didn't know, I ..there, it's very open but you can't see much ...there's a road that goes up and along the top - we're camped underneath the reservoir, basically right below it, and you can go up above the reservoir, and I didn't even know the road was, did that, I didn't know the road was up there, and as I travelled up there myself, I could've found out [?] I could see everything that was going on at the campsite, but you can't see out - you can't see up, you can't see round and if anyone comes to the bottom of your camp ground you can't even see they are...interviewer: So they could've come to your...

The father's habit of speech is to speak rapidly and lots of self censoring. We note that this does not seem to change or shift much, from topic to topic.

Note the change from "we" to "I" being very important to him: it is about the area. It is likely, according to the language, that he is very sensitive about having chosen this spot for his family to camp.

D: they could've come in and you could never know it. The water was not very, it was not a fast running creek, but it is quite loud moving through the logs and things like that, so hearing range is not all that far either..so's you couldn't hear anyone coming up either.Interviewer: so he was just kind of playing, you guys were doing your thing and then you noticed...

D: he was playing with grandpa

J: he, yeah, he was with my grandfather

D:.he was over, he was getting ready for a nap, uh say it was almost, by that time it was almost two, and he usually takes his nap, um...we was just, yeah, we decided we were going to go a little exploring, and he was going to be good with grandpa by the campfire, we weren't more than fifty..

J: ten minutes

D: fifty yards away and ten minutes, but for time, we, I, seen him to the point I figured out he was gone and I come back up to the creek and I actually seen, there were some things down by there, some little minnows that I thought he would just love, so when I come back up to get him and I yelled over to grandpa, um, where, you know, where is little DeOrr? He, immediately shock. He says, he came up to you, because it's such a small area. That's what a lot of people, they don't understand, they just assume how could you let your child out of your sight? This area is pretty well blocked in and you can see, you, there is no way you couldn't not see him, in what we thought, and just a split second your whole world is upside down and - vanished, there's not a trace found. That's the reason why they, this been called on the news a suspension, because it is not a suspension, but there's not s single trace of him. This child loses stuff. He's two, almost three, anybody who has a child that age range knows, they leave trails, they lose stuff..

J: shoes come off..anything

D: There's just nothing. There's a possibility that he may be with somebody, and that's giving us some hope. It's a bad thing that he will be not with us right now but it also means there is a good chance that he is alive and with somebody, so we're trying every aspect we can, any aspect we can..

Interviewer: is that what your gut tells you?

D: Yes. As his father I believe and I think after being up there, and a lot of people agree with me a lot, that he is no longer up the mountain anymore. The searching advances they used, and was just very thorough for miles, there wasn't a stone left unturned, there still isn't, and we're going to continue to search, but being his father also, that's what my heart and my gut tell me but I'm not sure, so that's where I'm asking the public's help -anything - I'm, Lhima HC Sherriff are handling this but they're not designed for systems quite like this, they've got two phone lines, and please be patient, they're doing the best they can, and we all are, and we will find him.

"As his father" may be why "I" and "trouble" enters: taking responsibility. Also, "as his father" takes ownership of the child while the child is missing. Note also, "as his father" can be an expression of responsibility, and instinct:"I believe and I think after being up there..." is weak, and shows an insecurity and need to "have others join in" with "a lot of people agree with me a lot"This is to say that he is very insecure, which is expected due to the failure to find his son. He couples himself with the county sheriff; not as an investigator, (which guilty sometimes do, seeking to impress the listener that they are not being kept out of the loop of info), but as in coordinating a search and gives the specific reason: they have two phone lines. Note: "we will find him" also shows no doubt, after much weakness and doubt about him no longer being on the mountain. This may be to suggest a belief that he has been kidnapped. End of Part OneWhat have we learned thus far?There is linguistic indication that the parents had some form of argument when they first discussed the child being missing and it was directly related to some delay in calling 911. The father does most of the talking, while the mother does less. The mother does not give signals of deception, but in context, this is a small sample, compared to the father.The father's use of "my son" precludes child abuse particularly because it comes during the time of the child missing. What does this tell us?If the father has done anything to the child, it was not intentional. The same could be said if the grandfather or someone else did something by accident; was not watching him when he fell into water, and so on. The child is not likely a victim of ongoing child abuse. This means a possible accident, or unintended event, (manmade or wildlife) or a kidnapping, but not a victim of ongoing child abuse. This is based upon the strength of the pronoun as well as other references, including the 'limited' search time; that is to say, confidence in finding him, without the "open ended" sayings such as, "We will never stop searching for him..." and "I will spend the rest of my life searching for you..." with its fatalistic overtones.

The father's intense focus upon the rescue operation shows someone who was impressed with "toys" as grown men can be, with lots of interest in specifics, including the helicopter, night vision, and so on. This is in stark contrast between the number of words dedicated to this topic when compared to the number of words compared to his son. It is also concerning in that although it could be seen as confidence in the searching professionalism, it is far more information than is about his son. This is not expected unless words were dedicated to this work's conclusion. It was not. The self-censoring and change of pronoun is duly noted, especially for topics. We also have the word "dead" used twice; which in context, is most unexpected and unsettling.

The father and mother both express confidence in the search and plead for it to not end. Question: What do you make of no reliable denial?Answer: There is no context for it. The portion of the interview where the "hearsay" is brought up is about the search being called off. Had the interviewer guided it, even gently, we would have likely have known via the denial or lack of denial. Trained journalists provide great information when they seek it. This is useful for investigators, as well. In this case, we see no evidence of training, as there is:a. no follow up in sensitive pointsb. no questions about the language he usedc. no challenges d. Control:the subject shows how he controls the interviewer (not the interview) by turning the tables with asking if media had questions for him. Was the interviewer unprepared? Did he miss all the indications of sensitivity including the delay in calling for assistance? Did he not want to ask about calling "Search and Rescue"?We let the subject "control the interview", but not us. By the we mean that we let the subject talk on and on, but not at the expense of noting his sensitivity and missing grand opportunities for information. We let them speak on and on (a good point) but we ask the relevant questions and do not let ourselves be 'de railed' in the way he was. (the major failure, thus far, in the interview). Thus far, the Interviewer has not gone to this point, which is critical and should be central for the Interviewer: clear the parents, especially the father, and then move in the same extending circles in the interview, as law enforcement does in its investigation, and as search and rescue does in its own action. It is the most natural and sensible manner. The Interviewer fails to raise suspicion nor does he ask outright: "Have you taken a polygraph?" "What would you say to people who suspect you might have had an accident and hidden your son?"in any form. Lastly, the father' extreme need to place himself in the truck: What caused this sensitivity?Is it because of the report from a local? If so, why would this be so sensitive to him? This may be the context, but the sensitivity is high enough to cause him repetition. Or, is it something else?If it is about the neighbor's report, is he so concerned about it because he thinks it will hinder the search?Or, is there a more nefarious reason?Why the story-telling narrative, replete with description language of emotions? The need to show urgency may be due to guilt over the debate of calling 911, producing a delay in time. ****************************************************************************

In Part Two, the Interviewer finally gets 'personal' about the parents. Will he finally dig for information?

“The blanket was in the truck, so Jessica now has got that blanket and she will not let go of it. She holds it, smells it, loves it. It’s the only attachment she has to that boy right now.”

Note the distancing language "That". This maybe due to guilt or location.

This reminds me of the McCanns and "cuddle cat"

Note below:

Jessica: this is his blanket. He doesn't go anywhere without his blanket, his cup, or his monkey, and all three of them were left at the campground. And since he..D: All three has to be with him.J: Yes.D: He will trip over them if he has to, but they are going with him, and this is the first time since he's been born, pretty much, that he's been without these things...and that's another reason why we were wondering.J: Yes, because this is the blanket that we brought him home in from the hospital, this is his, this is what comforts him and at all times. D: This is an exact replica of a security blanket, for everybody this is his actual blanket - he does not go anywhere without it, that's our other concern of why.

They tell us.

A: "He doesn't go anywhere without his blanket"

B: "All three of them were left at the campground"

C: "All three has to be with him"

D: " The blanket that we brought him home in from the hospital, this is his, this is what comforts him and at all times."

If all of the above are true, then why was it in the "truck" If it was in the truck (as grandfather explains) and we are to believe he "He doesn't go anywhere without his blanket". Then the last place he was was in the "truck" and not at the camp site as we are told he was.

Why does "grandfather" say his blanket was in the truck and they say "All three of them were left at the campground"

Excellent point, John, and I am wondering the same thing. The blankie could not have been in the truck and with the boy at the same time unless the last place the child was, was in the truck with the blankie. Dead give-away.

But to give them some benefit of the doubt as to claiming the blankie was always with the boy, (yet when he went missing it wasn't with him, OR left behind at the campsite, it was in the truck); their words, he would not go anywhere without it; how long was the blankie in the truck from the time the boy was taken from the truck and placed in the campgrounds without his blankie and before he went missing?

This is not adding up that the child always had his blankie yet it was found in the truck and not with the boy at the campsite BEFORE he went missing, which speaks loudly that no kidnapper could take the blankie with him since it was in the truck and not at the campsite.

Which brings me to another question; how could daddy DeOrr describe their panic as a "dead" panic? To be in any "dead" state would be to be immovable, statutory, not moving. I see a panic situation as being in high anxiety, in a frenzy of hysteria; definitely NOT in a "dead" panic which indicates being immobile with fear.

A major concern I have is how long the child was actually missing before 911 was called? They are saying they looked for him for twenty-mins before calling for emergency assistance, but this does not tell us how long they were off on their walk AFTER leaving the child behind, supposedly being watched by his grandfather.

There could be a vast difference in the time the child was actually missing as opposed to the time they said they realized he was missing and looked for twenty mins prior to making their calls. If they were on their hike, say for ten mins, (which I don't believe to be the truth), then this would be thirty mins the child was missing, not twenty. IFF this is true, why wouldn't they have contacted 911 immediately upon returning from their hike and realizing their child was gone? THIRTY Minutes! Or could it have actually been considerably longer?

I smell a rat here whether anyone else agrees with me or not. It could be accident related, however, IMO there's more to come.

Is it possible DeOrr wandered off, and got shut into the truck? If they had just arrived and were setting up camp, maybe his blanket was left in the truck, and he went to retrieve it. It doesn't take long for a little child to succumb to heat exhaustion. It seems unlikely, though, as if he had died in the truck the cadavar dogs would have picked that up - also, it would be a tragic, if avoidable accident, they would not have any reason to stage a disappearance, and the time frame of either ten or four minutes, well, it's not as if he was out of sight for an hour, if really, they are being honest about how long it was before they realised he was gone. What about the 'fifty' though, and the mother's interjection - was the father going to say fifty minutes, before the mother jumped in with yards? How did they know they were only fifty yards away if they didn't know how far from them he might be? Or did they mean fifty yards from grandpa? If so, was grandpa out of sight - in an open area it's not difficult to see someone who is only fifty yards away, or to notice the child wasn't there, too. 'I watched him till I figured he was gone' - was he out of sight at fifty yards? I think a parent wouldn't just watch till he figured he was gone, he would panic and run until he could see the child again - nobody would just watch a two year old disappear from sight, would they?

I get that I should be concentrating only on the words used, and that I am not much doing that - it's very difficult to not start thinking in other ways.

Ooops.... I meant to say one-hundred FIFTY feet. Not a short distance not to be able to see your child in a densely wooded area. The child would be shorter than the undergrowth. One would need to go look for themselves, particularly since they said they did not hear the little boy making any sounds.

Again, NOT buying their story. Not entirely. And definitely not the denial of the truck at store story, or the blankie in truck story that the child never leaves behind, daddy nervously talking too much, now the fifty yards story.

Peter, there is another meaning to "hauling" besides what you wrote above. Was the father hauling/carrying the son in the truck to get away and hide what happened? I skimmed and saw in comments someone mention the little guy's blanket was found in the truck.

Did you see the article online where the police say they dont suspect the parents and to quit speculating online?

I agree that there was some type of "discussion" before calling 911. I believe the matter of fact way in which the mother states "It was 2:36 when I called. " stakes her claim as the one who wanted to call as the father hesitated.

They could have also had words about him leaving in the truck to call. You are right, that truck is a sensitive topic. "Hauling" could mean something, or not. He is a truck driver. It could be in his vocabulary. It could also be leakage. Maybe he had to dump an illegal substance while making that call...away from the camp. Just speculating. Then again, maybe he simply felt guilty leaving the area his son went missing in. To me it doesn't seem strange at all to drive to get service. I live in a rural area where there are dead spaces. Yes, pun intended. From years of living here, I know where they are and I know I have to drive out of them to get a call through. This father said he'd never been there, so how did he know for sure he couldn't get a call through? I wish they would release his 911 call!

The truck is sensitive as little Deorr had his blanket with him in the truck, so that is the last known place that little Deorr was seen alive with his prize possessions. Little Deorr would not leave his blanket, monkey, or cup without making a fuss unless he was asleep.

Did someone take little Deorr while he was sleeping?Did little Deorr die in the truck?

I don't like the way Deorr Sr. wants to control all the information about little Deorr in the Media.

Anonymous, 2:26....it is quite a jump, but if it is leakage, the strongest kudos to you for noting it. It is a sign (by you) of a very active, lively intellect; one of which can pull in influences and resources from a wide variety.

I am Anonymous 2:26. Thanks for the kind words, Peter. My theory is this: Mom and Dad went into the woods to "explore" (i.e., have sex) and left the child with (Great)Grandparent. GGP fell asleep. Child woke up, went looking for Mom and Dad. Stumbled ("He will trip over them if he has to") over M&D in the act. Dad panicked. Something happened that resulted in Child's death.

In this part of analysis, and as far as i'm aware, in the whole interview, he never addresses Jessica by name, but calls her "she" throughout, or "we/us" when including her. Is he purposely doing this, distancing himself away from her, depersonalising her. If so, why? Is this the way he talks when speaking of her all the time? (his norm)

I would be interested to see, if, he would allow her to get a word in, she addresses him by "he" or personalises him, using his name?. I can not imagine myself and my wife sitting down talking for over 15 minits about our missing 2 year old, and not calling each other by name at least once. Was their relationship in trouble before this, thus the distancing language from him? If it was, i would imagine this to bring them close, at least till (hopefully) young DeOrre is found safe and well.

Sometimes I think I'm from a different planet and see things very differently than earthlings. :-) . John, I was just going to comment on them as a couple when I saw your comment.

I think this couple is very comfortable with each other. How long have they been together? I would not be surprised to hear they grew up together. I thought the interview showed they rely on each other, each in their own way.

Watch carefully. She's the strong one. She's the base. But she allows him to take care of her and think he is. She pushes forward when she needs to. I believe she did when she made the 911 call. He probably wanted to keep searching. I'm not sure he believes their son has been kidnapped, either, but she wanted to appeal for his safety.

Each state AMBER Alert plan has its own criteria for issuing AMBER Alerts. The PROTECT Act, passed in 2003, which established the role of AMBER Alert Coordinator within the Department of Justice (DOJ), calls for DOJ to issue minimum standards or guidelines for AMBER Alerts that states can adopt voluntarily. DOJ's guidance on criteria for issuing AMBER Alerts is:

Law enforcement must confirm that an abduction has taken placeThe child is at risk of serious injury or deathThere is sufficient descriptive information of child, captor, or captor's vehicle to issue an alertThe child must be 17 years old or youngerIt is recommended that immediate entry of AMBER Alert data be entered in FBI's National Crime Information Center. Text information describing the circumstances surrounding the abduction of the child should be entered, and the case flagged as Child Abduction.Most state's guidelines adhere closely to DOJ's recommended guidelines.

I am wondering about the sighting at the store. I find it odd that they state they believe he was abducted, which is the least likely scenario, yet when the store clerk says she saw the little boy, filthy and crying, with a man in a black truck at 6 pm, they immediately discount this report and insist it was Dad with DeOrr around noon. I think a store clerk would know the difference between 6 pm and noon. Would the same clerk even be on duty at those different times?

Dad says "as a family" they went to the store earlier in the day. Is this sensitive because it was the last time they ever went anywhere "as a family"?

Why was DeOrr filthy and crying with Dad in the store at noon? Why wasn't mom in the store with them, or DeOrr left in the truck with mom? Was his crying making Dad mad? What if Dad smacked him or shook him, then he "fell asleep" on the ride back to camp, but he actually died instead? They didn't realize it and left him in the truck to sleep while they went exploring, telling Grandpa to keep an eye on DeOrr. Grandpa didn't realize DeOrr was in the truck, and when he looked for him and didn't see him, assumed he was with the parents. Then the parents came back and discovered he had died, creating their "dead panic", argument, and delay in contacting authorities. Then dad drove his "half mile" to get signal, "hauling" something to the reservoir, which was a "half mile" away, as Kathead at 2:57 pm pointed out?

" -.the helicopter they used is used to back very deep Montana, it is designed for a lot worse situations than this, "

This got me concerned. For me, if one if my children were missing, there would be no worse situation. I am puzzled by what "worse" situation he is imagining, for which the helicopter would be used.

My husband and I wouldn't call or refer to each other by name in a conversation like this, unless there was a third person involved in that part of the story. My mind would be racing so fast, I wouldn't be thinking about whether the interviewer could keep up with my pronouns.

"I, seen him to the point I figured out he was gone" is an odd phrase the dad uses. Then describing asking grandpa "where is little DeOrr" "He, immediately shock. He says, he came up to you".

He also mentions how loud the creek is twice. He uses past and present tenses to describe the creek "The water was not very, it was not a fast running creek, but it is quite loud moving through the logs and things like that, so hearing range is not all that far either..so's you couldn't hear anyone coming up either"

Searching consisted of "twenty minutes of up and down the creek and up and around the camp". They were returning from looking at minnows in said creek so they would have seen him had he gone to the creek so why search there?

Another odd phrase " I actually seen, there were some things down by there, some little minnows that I thought he would just love". Does it mean when someone uses the word actually?

Did the mom see him after returning from the store? Or did dad rush her and say that he was fine with grandpa?

JenB - I think the father means that the helicopter is designed for more challenging environments, and much more difficult terrain. What he said did sound terrible, but I give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

If the family went the store around noon, with a, presumably, tidy and happy child. Who was in the store in the evening, with a "filthy and crying" child, "matching our description of our son"?

The parrents say they think their child was kidnapped? I'd go to the store to buy some candy and chat with the cashier, to find out ... Did they, and/or how can they be so sure that no "gentleman", with "a black truck" was there with their child in the evening??

If the family went the store around noon, with a, presumably, tidy and happy child. Who was in the store in the evening, with a "filthy and crying" child, "matching our description of our son"?

The parrents say they think their child was kidnapped? I'd go to the store to buy some candy and chat with the cashier, to find out ... Did they, and/or how can they be so sure that no "gentleman", with "a black truck" was there with their child in the evening??

Wow, yes - why didn't they say, 'please, if that was you with our son at the store - bring him back, let him go' or whatever - instead, ithe concern is that it's a negative rumour about them. If they really believed he had been kidnapped, they'd be frantic about the guy with a distresses little boy matching the description of their son.

D : 2.36 when she called and I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it. So I, she got very very lucky. I was blessed that she was able to get service because I didn't think, I didn't want to try and risk getting half way through my talking to 911 and have it cut off. So I went down to where I knew I could get a little service, about a half mile down the road.

Four blues (bolded in this case) in this response which makes it highly sensitive.Hauling is also flagged.Hauling could be used to imply haste or speed(hauling ass) it caould also relate to removing something (hauling away)This would cause me to ask if blood and cadaver dogs have checked out the vehicle as well as forensics.I would be looking for anything unexpected such as blood, vomit, faeces, urine or semen, i would also be looking to find DeOrr Kunz Jr's DNA in unexpected places such as in an awkward to reach place or somewhere it wouldn't be expected if he were normally in a car seat.

Why did he think one bar wouldn't get it>If he has one bar he has service.Make the call give them you location first and what happened and your number so if he did get cutoff he could try again or they could call him back.In the meantime emergency services would be on their way.

So I, she got very very lucky.So is used to explain why something happened, he expected to be asked the question and answered it before it was asked making it sensitive/He then self edits and goes from I to SHEWhat was he going to say?Was he going to say he got very very lucky?Note the use of the qualifier word VERY ( a qualifier is a word which, when removed doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. It weakens rather than strengthens a sentence.He repeats it twice making it sensitive.Why does he consider his wife to have been very very lucky?I would ask how many bars she had on her phone?Do they use the same provider?If so how was she lucky and he wasn't if they both had the same signal strength?

Did he perhaps move the truck in order to hide or dispose of something?Was he perhaps lucky in that he wasn't spotted doing whatever it was he was doing.Did he try making the 911 call whilst driving or did he drive , stop and then make the call?What signal strength did he have on his phone at that location?

I would go up there with the same type of phone and provider and see if the signal strength varied depending on location or if it was the same, in which case why did he make the call where he did and not at the original campsite location?

I went down to where I knew I could get a little service, about a half mile down the road.How did he know he could get a little service at that specific location?What is his definition of a little service if he thought one bar was not enough and feared getting cut off?

How long was he at that location for?What did he do once he had made the call?

Uh, we searched for - after about twenty minutes in a dead panic, not knowing where he was in such a small area, and not knowing, never being there, I knew I was in trouble.

Isn't this contradictory?Here he says never being there which would seem to imply he had not been there before, although never does not mean did not.Yet previously he told us he drove to an area about half a mile down the road where he knew he could get some service.He repeats not knowing twice making it sensitive.Why would this be sensitive?Is this a form of alibi building perhaps?Note also the dropped pronouns in relation to not knowing where he was, not knowing where he was in such a small area,not knowing and finally, never being there.It is a strange phrase, never being thereIs this further leakage of marbles?Expected would be along the lines of having never been there.Instead he tells us never being there.Is this perhaps him not being there as part of the normal family unit, mom, dad,child(ren)never being there, perhaps he was away a lot working?Perhaps the relationship was rocky?Does he see himself as never being there for his son at all the milestones?

I was in trouble.Why would he know he was in trouble if he has done nothing?Surely it would be his son who was in trouble given his age and the location?His concern, as with any innocent parent, would be the expected "I knew my son/Child's name was in trouble"His age , the location, wild animals, water, the weather would all be at the forefront of the parent.They wouldn't immediately think abduction, the first thought would be he has wandered off and they would be calling his name and checking the immediate area in case he has gone for a nap in the tent or vehicle, gotten engrossed in something be it an insect or amall animal, a puddle, a log or any number of things that can catch the attention of a child.If there was water nearby then checking it for the child paddling, throwing stones or worse case scenario floating.None of this would get the parent in trouble, children do wander off, get engrossed or sleep in the strangest of places (as well as the most obvious ones such as in or under the bed.

we searched for - after about twenty minutes in a dead panicHe self edited and stopped himself before he said how long they searched for.He then says we searched for - after about twenty minutes in a dead panicAfter about twenty minutes of what?He doesn't say we searched for 20 minutes.After about twenty minutes in a dead panicDid they search first calmly and then twenty minutes in a dead panic?It is interesting he uses the phrasedead panicHere he introduces the word dead, concerning given his son is allegedly missing.

Unless the parent was deliberately negligent, they have nothing to fear.He knew he was in trouble because he had done something that would cause him to be in trouble.His son is missing, allegedly abducted rather than lost, he knows he was in trouble.He is leaking marbles (or should it be boulders?)He has a missing child, he knows he is in trouble and he is hauling in his truck.He has a missing child, he knows he is in trouble, there is dead panic, he is hauling in his truck.

I see in my haste/carelessness in a post further up, I said the mother interjected when the father said 'fifty' with 'yards', when actuallly she said 'ten minutes'. To pose the question/possibility again, I wonder was she heading off the father saying they were absent for fifty minutes? He says they were gone fifty...she interrupts with 'ten minutes' - he then says 'ten minutes and fifty yards'. I'd be more likely to say how long I was away from anywhere rather than how far, but maybe a truck driver would think more in terms of distance.

Trustmeiget - on one of the other posts concerning DeOrr there's a quote from the paternal grandfather, who says that if the baby is in the water, someone put him there - he can't walk on level ground, or uphill, keeps falling over and cries if he falls, so someone would have heard him. The dad, on the other hand, says he moves very fast. Neither may be being untruthful - perhaps he's one of those marathon crawler tots, some can go like the clappers, but I doubt the terrain would be too good for comfortable crawling, and he's probably too old to still want to do very much crawling over walking.

Peter, and all...what do you make of this statement in regards to scripting of the 911 call?

"D : 2.36 when she called and I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it. So I, she, got very very lucky. I was blessed that she was able to get service because I didn't think, I didn't want to try and risk getting half way through my talking to 911 and have it cut off. So I went down to where I knew I could get a little service, about a half mile down the road."

---------------

I keep coming back to this statement, and it seems all wrong to me.

When he says: "I didn't want to try and risk getting half way through my talking to 911 and have it cut off"... all I can think is SCRIPTING!

While in a 'dead panic' about his missing 2yo son, he had the presence of mind to check his bars, and decide that he didn't want to "RISK" calling 911 and getting cut off 'halfway' through talking to them? This suggests he thought about what he was going to say, how long it would take, and considered the call being interrupted/cut off as a 'risk'.

He doesn't say he called 911, (or tried to call) only to have his call drop. Instead, he says he, "didn't think one bar would get it". Why wouldn't he just try?

What he is saying is that he considered the possibility of the call dropping, and took preemptive action to prevent that from happening before calling 911, thereby placing his concern about the possibility of the call getting cut off ABOVE the urgency of obtaining help for his son!

What is the 'risk' involved in getting cut off? (Unless he was telling a rehearsed story that he wanted to be sure he could get through without any interruption to throw him off?)

The most important thing when calling 911, is getting through, ASAP! If you get cut off, you call back! Actually, they (911) call you back if you get disconnected! There is no risk in getting cut off that would make waiting to call the better option for an innocent parent. Worst case, you get a few words into your call and it drops, at which point you have to move toward better reception, and call back. Best case, your call goes through and you report your emergency, just as Mom did!

A 2 year old should be able to walk fine. And the photos I saw the ground was pretty level. But who knows what the area in between is like. But kids can get into things/places you would not expect. My son at age 2 crawled into several places I would not have expected because he wanted something.

I think it's more the distance. 4/10 of a mile is hard for me to picture in my mind.

Jessica: this is his blanket. He doesn't go anywhere without his blanket, his cup, or his monkey, and all three of them were left at the campground. And since he..D: All three has to be with him.J: Yes.D: He will trip over them if he has to, but they are going with him, and this is the first time since he's been born, pretty much, that he's been without these things...and that's another reason why we were wondering.---------------------------------------------------------------------

I have three children and they all have "lovies", with varying degrees of attachment to their items. My daughter uses her thumb, my oldest son uses a blanket and my youngest son also uses a blanket. They are adapters - things that comfort them in times of stress/nap-time/bedtime.

If DeOrre felt the need to constantly carry around multiple comfort items, he may be a child who regularly experiences a lot of stress. YMMV and this is only my opinion - BUT - the fact that he needs three separate comfort items and all three "have to be with him" at all times suggests to me that all is not well in his world and he may be seeking security.

She never asks for help. Just says they can find her son then answers questions about name and what he was wearing. No sense of panic. 911 addresses dad calling but I don't think they talked to him since his wife had already gotten thru to them.

And I read too that the blanket was "in the truck". It reads like that was a quote by the grandfather.

Doesn't add up if he never went anywhere with out it. Why wasn't it with him with grandpa?

The drive dad took is cecing more concerning by the minute.

And the lack of concern about the child seen at 6pm crying. They should be frantic to determine who that was. It's probably the most concerning part for parents so sure their kid was kidnapped in the remote woods. That's so unlikely so if you think that, why are you not chasing that down.

If I was surey child was kidnapped and someone's spotted a child that looked similar I would be hunting for that person.

“They've lived with me in my house for the past year and a half and he's my buddy. When he wants to take a nap he'll come up to me and say 'nap papa, nap papa,' so we'd lay down and take a nap. I’m so attached to him. I don't know what I'd do if we lost him. I just can't imagine going day to day without that little boy running around. I’m so sad. I’m just at a loss here.”

Jen Ow,I believe we need to look at all the possible reasons the father is sensitive about being in the truck. Scripting could be one of them.

I have repeatedly pointed out that I didn't find it strange that he drove for better service. That is the norm in my area. What I want to know is why the need to over-explain? Is it because he's "hauling" someone or something away from the campsite? Or could there be another reason? It is not unexpected to drive away, it is to anticipate and over explain it.

So his sensitivity to where he was comes directly after the mother states emphatically she called for help. Listening to the rest of the interview, it is obvious he is used to being in charge, yet where was he when the mother took charge?

Put it together with "we decided" to show there was some disagreement first. Also, I note the mother was "very, very lucky" to get a call through. He was "blessed" she did. In other words, hers was just dumb luck, but God blessed him.

He repeats later "that's when I drove down the road." I think given the context he is defending his decision and re asserting his role as father. Oh, that's also why he says "as his father" a lot.

Trustme,Just to be clear, you do know the grandfather making the quotes on Little Deorr not being able to walk, the blanket in the truck, someone put him in the reservoir if he's found there...is not the grandfather on the trip?

Which bugs me. Why is that grandfather quoting to People magazine statements, many of which are directly opposed to his own son and the mother of his grandson?

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt right now and assume the magazine misquoted him. I'm betting Deorr's mother and father know how well their son moved.

JenOw - I agree that is all very strange, his priorities seem out of order - anyone would just try to call before leaving the area where the child was most likely to still be. First, I thought going down the road for service was a reason to go off in his truck, but for what reason? He didn't want to risk something, but making an emergency phone call is hardly a risky activity, but delaying one is a risk. 'Risk' does seem an odd choice of word there, 'chance' would sit more comfortably, if the mother tried but failed to get a signal, he had reason to be in the truck. in the event they are on the two lines at the same time, so he must have called in almost as soon as he got into his truck or taken just a minute to drive down the road, and she must also have gotten a signal after the failed attempt? It would be interesting to know for how long he was away in his truck. The interviewer seemed to be under the impression that Deorre Sr knew the baby was missing before his wife knew, 'because you were in the truck', but they both said 'no, we both did.' I have wondered why the interviewer was minded to make that suggestion. Did Deorre go missing from the truck? Had he been left asleep after the journey, with the truck doors open, while they set up camp? Did they all just assume they'd notice when he woke, but did not? Did somebody take him, and why was his blanket in the truck?

What surprises me the most is that he didn't TRY to make the call in such a dire situation.

I can understand just waiting, and not even trying to call until driving to a spot with better service when ordering a pizza, or placing a non-urgent call in an area of low service reliability, but not when frantically searching for your missing 2 yo in the woods, and calling 911 because you can't find him. There was no reason not to try to call with one bar, as the mother showed. His worry over the 'risk' of getting cut off is unnatural to me. In his own words, the 'risk' of him being cut off before he finished talking, was greater than the urgency to call for help.

I had to call 911 about 2 years ago when my sister and I were involved in a road rage incident. I picked up my phone and dialed. I didn't look at my bars, I didn't consider if my call would go through, or stay connected, I just called!

Why was he filthy? They were camping. We set up camp today at 5pm. I am filthy, so are the kids. It's 8:39pm as I type this. Grandma took them to swim in the lake to rinse off lol.

The clerk probably would still be on at 6pm if they started around 11am/12pm. I dont know how they schedule shifts, but that is a fairly common shift in stores. If a cashier or clerk notices something odd enough to stand out, they probably also have something on their minds to pinpoint the time. An example would be making hot deli food on a schedule.....say they always cook burgers at 12:15pm and it takes 5 minutes to cook.....they noticed the kid filthy and crying as they put the finished food in the hot case. It's not perfect, but it gives a rough reference. Or....a co-worker called in sick 10 minutes before they were scheduled and the clerk was hanging up the phone when they saw the phone.

I would love to hear the mother give her account of finding out the baby was missing, and looking for him/calling 911. She didn't get to talk much, and that is also strange to me. It seems like she would likely be Deorr's primary caregiver, considering Dad is a truck driver.

I got the impression that Dad was talking over her, and controlling the interview, not just with the interviewer, but also with her. When she tries to speak up about calling 911, he gets louder and talks over her saying that she was "very very lucky", and he was "blessed" that she got through. (Which really didn't add any information to the narrative, so why was it so important for him to get out to the point of talking over her?)

One thing I'm wondering about is where he begins the account. I mean when the interviewer asks them to take him back to the day...he tells about the call. Then the search efforts. Much later, after the interviewer asks, he tells about how Deorr went missing. Is that considered out of order? I'm fairly certain if someone asked me just like that...to take them back to the day...I'd begin at the beginning, when I couldn't find my son.

Interviewer : is there any rumors or anything you've seen that you want to clear up, Jessica?

Jessica: I just, somebody at the store, um at Leador, said, it was one of the ladies that had worked at the store, said that they saw, um, a gentleman and a younger blonde boy matching our description of our son, really filthy, buying candy for him, and he was just bawling, in a black truck. That is the only other...

DeOrre Sr.: There's a problem, my pick-up truck is black.

I don't get this, black is black. How is this a "problem". They say the description described by one of the ladies is of a "black truck". Now, i can understand if they got the model wrong (they say his is a "pick-up truck") but this is not the issue because they don't correct the sighting of the design. As people have pointed out. Have they been back down there to verify what is was that saw. I'm sure LE must have. If they have, and the sighting was wrong, wouldn't we know by now that it was checked and they have dismissed it, it wasn't them. Also, if it wasn't them but someone else, and given the media coverage this has generated, wouldn't whomever it was at the store, come forward and said it was them.

That LE haven't publicly dismissed it (if they have, i have missed it), coupled with "There's a problem, my pick-up truck is black.For which i don't understand why he says that? Tells me, it has not been ruled out.

Hi Jen Ow -.yes, they have said very little about him, but they weren't asked about him. What struck me was what they said when the interviewer asked what they would say to him, if he were watching. I expected them to try to engage with him, on the off chance he might see it, for them to use his name, and to say something simple which he would understand, like hi, (nickname) whatever - 'be good, mommy has your blankie and monkey, and we'll see you very soon' - (I'd say be good, because I wouldn't want him to antagonise an abductor) - and would keep it simple,light and cheery so he would understand and not be made more anxious than he already might be. Instead there's a daddy is going to be a hero speech, and we'll find you,etc., but at two years old he doesn't understand he is lost or abducted, only that he's not with mummy and daddy right now. So, I found all that lacking and unconvincing; at the same time it's probably too harsh a judgement to make, because who would be thinking straight, or able to switch to infant communication code while under such stress, and in the unfamiliar setting of a television studio? I want them to have done better there, but for whatever reason, they were not much able to tune into their son. Perhaps it was down to knowing it was unlikely he would be watching, so they are speaking more to the audience than to their son.

Maybe, I wouldn't say 'be good' come to think of it - not sure if a two year old has developed much of a concept around being good, so maybe I'd say something like 'It's okay, buddy' - just something soothing and reassuring. I don't know, it's very difficult to know what, really, one would or could find oneself able to say.

And what puts more credence to the fact that it was father and son at the store is that, the blanket was found in the truck. So, if the blanket was found in the truck, baby DeOrre must have left it there the last time he was in the truck, at the store. We have a blanket and no baby?

The parents blowing off the potential sighting of their child at the store is very strange, especially since they feel so strongly he was abducted.

Also, this could be unreliable but I have read elsewhere that one or both of little Deorr Jr.'s parents have 2 other children they don't have custody of (the circumstances were not provided).

I also have read that the great-grandfather's "friend" was barely an acquaintance of the great-grandfather. Who is this guy? Have there been any statements released by the GGF or his "friend"? I wonder how lucid this GGF is.

From Jessica Mitchell's FB page, it is pretty clear there are 2 other children but I have never heard mention of them in any interviews. Not sure if not mentioning other kids can be analyzed, as in "what the parents don't say".https://www.facebook.com/jessica.mitchell.1004/photos

Excellent point, Anon @6:27. Parents are claiming their baby has been kidnapped, then a credible witness (store clerk) claims to have seen a small crying child whose description could fit theirs and in a black truck resembling theirs, and they just blow it off?!! WHY! That right there could be another 'dead' give away.

Like I said earlier on, I'm not buying into their denial of 'child seen at the store' story. Not yet anyhow. Not when it is likely that their child WAS seen at the store, filthy, crying, with daddy buying him candy to calm him while 'hauling' him in his black truck. Oh yeah, quite possible indeed. John's comment too, "I knew I was in trouble" is also a major concern. In trouble for doing WHAT, exactly? Ummmm....

Jessica: I just, somebody at the store, um at Leador, said, it was one of the ladies that had worked at the store, said that they saw, um, a gentleman and a younger blonde boy matching our description of our son, really filthy, buying candy for him, and he was just bawling, in a black truck. That is the only other...

DeOrre Sr.: as a family, we went down to get a few things. It was me, but they claim it was at six o clock...that afternoon, evening, but we..were...

Jessica: Earlier, it was earlier that day

DeOrre Sr.: ..with search and rescue until what, a quarter to four..?

Jessica: yeah..

DeOrre Sr.: we didn't, we never, haven't left the camp since one o clock that afternoon, so it's just a lot of hearsay, and..

interviewer: was anybody camping round you?

--This doesn’t make sense.He states,1. As a family, we went down to get a few things 2. It was me, but they claim it was at six o’clock

He needs to explain, if it was just him, why did he state “as a family”. Is this the same as throwing “we” out there?

He also said: “we didn’t, we never, haven’t left the camp since one o’clock that afternoon.”He couldn’t say, 1. “we didn’t leave the camp since one o’clock that afternoon.2. we never left the camp since one o’clock that afternoon3. I didn’t leave the camp since one o’clock that afternoon.

"So I went down to where I knew I could get a little service, about a half mile down the road"

I commented in a previous thread on this remark. This maybe leakage?. I would focus a search in the area where he said he got service. How accurate are mobile phone mast's? Can they pin point him in the area he said he was?

Weeks after making headlines amid accusations that she is a white woman passing herself off as African-American, Rachel Dolezal says she is no longer confused about who she is.

She is a black woman, she told Vanity Fair.

"It's not something that I can put on and take off anymore," Dolezal said. "Like I said, I've had my years of confusion and wondering who I really (was) and why and how do I live my life and make sense of it all, but I'm not confused about that any longer. I think the world might be -- but I'm not."

Who is Rachel Dolezal?

Dolezal stepped down as head of the Spokane, Washington, chapter of the NAACP in June over criticism that she's portrayed herself as black, even though her parents told a local newspaper that the 37-year-old was born white. She said then that she identified as black, and Dolezal maintains that she wasn't being deceptive.

"I just feel like I didn't mislead anybody; I didn't deceive anybody," Dolezal now says.

"If people feel misled or deceived, then sorry that they feel that way, but I believe that's more due to their definition and construct of race in their own minds than it is to my integrity or honesty, because I wouldn't say I'm African-American, but I would say I'm black, and there's a difference in those terms."

The woman who touched off conversations about what constitutes race now says that the whole thing was a misunderstanding and that she is trying to work out how to proceed, having lost her job and friends over the scandal.

Why the fascination with Rachel Dolezal?

But to her, being "black" is "not a costume," and she "would like to write a book just so that I can send (it to) everybody there as opposed to having to continue explaining."

"After that comes out, then I'll feel a little bit more free to reveal my life in the racial social-justice movement," she says. "I'm looking for the quickest way back to that, but I don't feel like I am probably going to be able to re-enter that work with the type of leadership required to make change if I don't have something like a published explanation."

The Lemhi County Sheriff’s Office is officially scaling back an intensive and exhaustive search of the Timber Creek/Stone Reservoir, area, southwest of Leadore, for the missing 2 yr old boy, DeOrr Kunz. After 10 days of searching, diving, and scouring the hillsides, the Sheriff’s Office has decided to redirect the investigation.

The primary searchers included multiple agencies such as, Salmon Search & Rescue, The Lemhi County Sheriff’s Office, The Bonneville County Sheriff’s Office & Bonneville County Search & Rescue, Salmon PD, Idaho Fish & Game, multiple canine handlers, divers, and the public, especially the community of Leadore. The family of DeOrr has continued to cooperate with law enforcement and has volunteered to take polygraphs, which is common in these types of investigations. The parents are not considered suspects and this is a routine procedure.

The Sheriff’s Office will keep a presence in the Timber Creek area, continuing to search for clues, and has not ruled out abduction by strangers or wild animals. Numerous resources, including helicopters with FLIR, diver’s, side scan sonar, scent dogs, cadaver dogs, horses, atv’s, and over 300 people, were used to grid and search the reservoir, the creek, and the hillsides, with absolutely no sign of the victim. We are asking the public to continue to report any information to the Idaho Fusion Center at 208 846-7676, or to the Lemhi County Sheriff’s Office at 208 756-8980.Sheriff Lynn D. Bowerman/Chief Deputy Steve Penner

"If people feel misled or deceived, then sorry that they feel that way, but I believe that's more due to their definition and construct of race in their own minds than it is to my integrity or honesty, because I wouldn't say I'm African-American, but I would say I'm black, and there's a difference in those terms."

Anything in the negative is sensitive.What is her definition of african-american? ( i hate the term)What is her definition of black?Note the dropped pronoun in relation to being sorry they feel that way The word "but" should always be observed carefully, particularly observing the words that follow the word "but" in comparison to what preceded it. It can refute what preceded it, or can be used to compare, or even negate what preceded it.

It is not her fault people were deceived or misled by her, it is their own fault due to their definition and construct of race.Note she refers to peoples minds and not legal definitions.

I agree peter, she has been paying attention to bruce.

Will we now see a spate of people claiming to be of a color or race they cannot possibly be?WE have a white woman claiming to be black despite the obvious color of her skin and featuresWill we have a black woman claiming to be white despite the obvious color of her skin and features.

If this doesn't work will she claim a new sexual identity?Will she claim a new sexual orientation (and sue)

Will she claim to be a new species and not human after all?

She will come up with something in order to get attention and make money

Anon at 8.17 - I wonder if he went to the truck to get his blanket, shut himself in, and being ready for his nap, fell to sleep. If they were still setting up camp perhaps there was gear in the truck and a door had been left open, which he managed to close. I wonder how they were camping, if they had tents or a sleeper vehicle, or what - where would he have been intended to take his nap, where did he go - did they maybe say he could fetch the blanket himself because the truck was open,, or that he should ask grandpa to get it for him, and he just somehow ended up shut into the truck? There's missing information, and what there is, is confused. He couldn't have already been playing with grandpa, as the mother says, if he was also 'right there with us' as the father says, and 'going' to be good with grandpa by the campfire, and then watched out of sight by the dad - unless grandpa was also with the three of them all the time, in which case each statement could be true, and make sense, and exonerate them from having let him out of sight (by himself). But if grandpa was with them all along, why not simply say, 'he went off for his nap with grandpa', and the reason why they felt they could let him out of sight, was because he was with grandpa? I think it's possible that all the contradictory things they said there could be true, but if so, there's maybe some issue round why, ideally, he should not have been left with grandpa. If, as someone above has said, grandpa is eighty-one, and not in best health, perhaps they felt mortified if they'd put the childcare onto him - maybe even other family members had made them promise not to put too much on grandpa, thus the vagueness, and the 'watching him' rather than caring for/looking after/attending him. They knew not to put too much on grandpa, they thought it would be okay for a little while, but it turned out not to be? I can't imagine how the grandpa must feel to find himself held responsible, when he didn't seem to think it was him who was meant to be caring for the little boy.

Juliet, you raise an interesting possibility, but IMO the little tyke wouldn't have been big enough (or strong enough) to open the truck door and crawl up inside by himself. On the other hand, daddy (or mommie) makes a point of mentioning how short his little legs were so that could make one wonder if the child found the truck door open and crawled inside (which they would already know this and might be trying to deter attention from this possibility).

I think the little fella would have a very hard time hoisting himself up into the truck which would have been a little too high off the ground for one so young to crawl into, plus there's the matter of the child not being able to climb in AND close the heavy truck door behind himself. Or, could he have closed it? This scenario seems a little far fetched to me but I suppose anything is possible.

But let's say the baby did somehow get himself up and inside the truck with his blankie and other little trinkets, with the door left open because the child couldn't close it all by his little lonesome; so with the door open he should have been found alive inside the truck. Wouldn't you think?

I thought the elder man was little DeOrr's grandfather, not his great grandfather? Which is it?

In any case, I find it incredible that this couple went off on a walk without making sure their busy toddler was safe in the presence of his granddaddy and that granddaddy was aware he had charge of the baby; so incredible that I'm not buying this white lie. I'm thinking they were gone a heck uv a lot longer than any ten minute 'stroll', also that the grandfather had no idea he was supposed to be watching little DeOrr and quite possibly feel asleep for awhile, then finds himself rudely awakened when they return and he is questioned about 'where's the baby?'

"I don't look at them as suspects at this point in time," the sheriff noted. "They want to believe he's abducted because that would make him still alive."-----Interesting statement. "at this point in time" which may mean at another point in time that may change. "They want to believe he's abducted because that would make him still alive." Does the sherriff believe otherwise?

It also says "The family's campsite sat approximately 40 yards from a fast-moving creek." I keep seeing the number 4 in this situation: "four-minute window where no one had an eye on him" "4/10 of a mile." 4 adults on the camping trip. We know about the Liar's Three. What about Four?

I also think the excitement the father displays at the search and rescue operation is reminicient of the excitement Gary Ridgeway showed once he'd been captured and was being treated like royalty by the case investigators. Not natural.

Have there been other witnesses besides these the parents and great grandad to have actually seen the baby before he was reported missing? It seems to me like the woods is the best place to stage an an abduction without those pesky surveillance cameras around. Has the police confirmed other witnesses that saw the baby that day?

The truck, the truck, the truck.Is it possible that they were gone but a few minutes, whatever, come back, notice him missing, Dad gets in the truck to look for service and accidentally backs him over?Something keeps bringing me back to the truck. Not sure if he could get into the truck and close the door, as we have a toddler apprx. The same age and he's incredibly strong but not strong enough or tall enough to shut the door to our full sized F150.I'm troubled by his parents thinking this was an abduction, but not giving any merit to a clerk seeing him at a store in a black truck (only BC DAD has a black truck), seems to me that they are explaining why it could have been Dad instead of looking into a stranger abduction, and if my toddler was missing I would want to look at all avenues.Especially troubling that they are saying they don't think he's in the mountains anymore.Why? A wild animal could have been watching in the shadows since they got their and dragged him off, but I didn't hear anyone bring that up and that and the reservoir would be my number one worry.Didn't Casey Anthony's mother, after sending Tim Miller and Texas Equisearch away, say "We don't think Kaylee is in the woods or anything."??the last troubling thing is that every Facebook picture on their page I have seen Deorr in with his father he is bawling his eyes out. Pics with mom he's smiling.That just bothers me.My toddler is a strong willed little one, but also very perceptive like his father, and he does not like many people outside of our immediate family and my maternal family. This includes my husbands family, who he doesn't see often. When he does, it's almost like he is sensitive that they are not comfortable around him (they don't understand what I call the terrible twos) which makes him uncomfortable and he cries even more.Just somethings that are concerning to me- but I am worried that either little Deorr was hurt on his way back from the store (he was crying and dad tried to placate him with candy which didn't work) and Dad, being gone all the time has no idea how to handle him and hurt him, or in the "dead panic" of it all they didn't see him underneath the truck, behind the truck, etc. and had ran over him.Something about the truck and his need to explain.

Searches of reservoir, wolf den yield no clues in hunt for Idaho toddler

For the past 10 days, Lemhi County Sheriff Lynn Bowerman and his deputies have scoured the rugged terrain surrounding a remote Idaho campsite for any sign of a missing 2 year-old boy -- using sonar imaging equipment to probe a nearby reservoir and searching a wolf den for any trace of the child.

As of Monday, authorities said they have no clue where Deorr Kunz could be, after the Idaho Falls toddler disappeared July 10 from a campsite near the Timber Creek Reservoir in Leodore where he was staying with his parents, great-grandfather and another adult.

"We've literally torn that country apart and found absolutely not one clue," Bowerman told FoxNews.com.

"We conducted an exhaustive search of the area, which included eight agencies, multiple dog search groups and well over 100 people," he said.

At 2:30 p.m. on July 10, the child's 25-year-old mother, Jessica Mitchell, called 911 from the campsite to report her son missing. Mitchell and the boy's father, Deorr Kunz Sr., said they left their son with his great-grandfather while they went off to explore. The great-grandfather believed the boy was with his parents, according to police.

What happened during the 20 to 45 minutes the child was alone is a mystery to authorities, said Bowerman, who noted "all possibilities" are being investigated.

At 2:30 p.m. on July 10, the child's 25-year-old mother, Jessica Mitchell, called 911 from the campsite to report her son missing. Mitchell and the boy's father, Deorr Kunz Sr., said they left their son with his great-grandfather while they went off to explore. The great-grandfather believed the boy was with his parents, according to police.

The family's campsite sat approximately 40 yards from a fast-moving creek -- four to six feet in width and about a foot deep -- that spills into the Timber Creek Reservoir, a half mile from where the toddler was last seen.

Cadaver dogs led law enforcement directly to the reservoir but Bowerman said unrelated cremated remains dumped into the water during the search likely prompted the canines' interest. A search of the reservoir using advanced sonar equipment yielded nothing, he said.

Over the weekend, the sheriff and his deputies carefully examined a nearby wolf den but found not a single clue -- no remnant of clothing or sign the boy had been dragged from the campsite.

"We've got a pack of wolves in there -- about 15 of them," Bowerman said. "We actually chased one out the day before yesterday."

The boy's parents, meanwhile, have volunteered to take polygraph tests after being interviewed and having their vehicles examined by police. The two have said they believe their child was abducted.

"I don't look at them as suspects at this point in time," the sheriff noted.

This is the first time i have heard LE use this type of language.

"They want to believe he's abducted because that would make him still alive."

Bowerman, however, said he's not convinced of an abduction, noting that no other campers were seen or heard in the area at the time of the disappearance. He also described the terrain as "steep and rugged" and said vehicles can reach the site but "the road is extremely rough."

"We don't have any evidence that somebody kidnapped this child," he said.

Still, the Lemhi County Sheriff's department has received tips from Canada to southern California to New York reporting a possible sighting of the child.

Anonymous - if he had been run over it would be an accident, and there would be no need to cover up an accident rather than call for help. In accidents, even if a child has died, parents will still call for medical help in the hope the child can still be resuscitated by those who have all the knowledge and resources - unless there is a reason not to, as in fear of signs of abuse being discovered. Is there any reason to believe that was the case? I think Peter, early on, found no likelihood of DeOrr being a victim of ongoing abuse.

Is it possible he was accidentally shut into the truck by one of the adults? A door could've been left open while they were unloading camping gear, perhaps, and shut when they had got everything. If he had managed to climb in unnoticed, they perhaps would not expect that he could have done that, and may not have seen him if he was snuggled into his blanket, especially if they were not expecting him to be there. Like many little boys, he likely was fascinated by trucks, and by daddy's truck - he had a little Hotwheels truck in his pocket - maybe he was drawn towards the truck, either taking his blanket with him, or also because the blanket was in there. Something about the truck which makes the account begin there, rather than from the point at which they discovered DeOrr was missing, or the time immediately leading up to that - he talks about what happened after (maybe). The father spends a lot of time explaining why he was in the truck, but really it wasn't necessary for him to be in the the truck, and to drive away from the site in order to make the phone call as his wife got a little service from where she was, and as they were together, there was also no need for each of them to call, or for them even to delay a call for long enough to have separated, unless, say, neither had their phones on them, so mum went to their base, and dad's phone was in the truck.. I think, though, that he might have created a need to be in the truck, in order to justify driving away from where his son went missing. By the time he made the call, his wife was already on the other line - so he likely made the call within a minute or two of getting into the truck, neither had a problem getting through, so he's keen to explain that away - and his being blessed while he's just discovered his baby is gone - such an incomprehensible, bizarre thing to say. In my version of reality, he would only be able to consider himself blessed just then if he had discovered his son alive on the roadside - but if that's not it, what else could cause him to find himself blessed? His wife being able to call is not it, as he was confident he would be able to do that himself within a couple of minutes, it's too much language, overkill, for just having been able to place a call, when he knew he could do that, anyway. Why were they lucky, very lucky, and blessed? -the baby had not been found. I would expect him to say that if the mother had found the baby, and the father to be blessed by that knowledge. That can't be it though - so what was that about?

Or the other way round - if the father had found the baby, he would feel blessed, absolutely - and he'd have reason to say the mother was very, very lucky (that he'd found him). I wish that could be the case - it's very puzzling that he said those things in the circumstances.

(Sorry if I am making too many posts and should try to put my thoughts more clearly into fewer.)

What if, on discovering DeOrr missing, the mother makes the call, the dad rushes off to check DeOrr has not got into the truck, doesn't at first see him - decides to drive down the road where he knows he can get service, they both make their calls, then DeOrr wakes up, and dad realises he is in the truck? What's he going to do now, with search and rescue already on the way? Okay, too outlandish.

Ref this article. #1, there is zero evidence and the sheriff does not believe the child was abducted. Big red flag there. #2, the sheriff does not believe the child was overtaken and dragged off by any wild animal(s). Another red flag. #3, the sheriff states that nothing has been found that would indicate the child was lost to the fast moving but shallow and narrow small creek. Red flag. #4, the sheriff relates that the parents are not persons of interest AT THIS POINT. This does not mean they are not being looked at as persons of interest. Huge red flag. THEY ARE.

#5, NOW it surfaces that the parents left the child unattended for 20 to 45 mins, claiming they thought he was being watched by his great granddaddy. WOAH! This is a big difference from the statement when we were told they took a stroll for ten mins. They were actually out of sight for up to 45 mins according to the sheriff, which leads me to believe they were gone from the campsite possibly even longer than 45 mins. They (both!) ARE suspects. If they aren't, they should be.

#6, They return from this lengthy 'stroll', find the child missing and do not call for emergency assistance for another twenty mins while they call and "look" for him, already knowing the granddaddy had not seen him since before they left the campsite; while wasting more time trying to find a cell ph signal? Spare me! This child was missing way longer than an hour before emergency dispatch was called.

Why would they even set up their campsite so close to a dangerous fast moving creek in the first place, and them with an active toddler? THEN not even making sure the child is taken care of prior to wandering off on their lengthy excursion? Perfect set up for a 'disappearing' child to mysteriously disappear.

How far was their campsite from granddaddy's campsite, and did they actually expect the little boy to toddle over to his granddaddy's site all by himself just because they told him too? What parents in their right mind walks off and leaves their active toddler child unattended too in a dangerous place like this, knowing there is a fast moving creek just 120 feet behind them, without making certain the child is in the care of another adult? They don't.

A 70-yr old man is not necessarily forgetful or slipping into senility. Plenty of 70-yr old (and older) seniors are in full control of their faculties. For many, their age, including executives of large corporations, are NOT on the verge of senility. This man knows if the child was left in his care; AND HE WASN'T.

THEN, #7, we come back to the truck and the fact that the child's special trinkets plus his blankie was left inside the truck; those things the child never parts from; PLUS the fact that this same truck was probably THE truck that was seen by the store clerk WITH the child inside, and it becomes HIGHLY SUSPECT that both parents are involved in this toddlers' disappearance and the sheriff knows this.

I am thinking that BOTH these parents are involved in little DeOrrs disappearance and that one or both know exactly where he is; was not left lying anywhere nearby nor was he dropped off anywhere still alive to wander around, suffer and die all by himself. I am coming to conclude that one of them killed him, whether accidentally or otherwise, and disposed of him; then tried to establish the perfect scenario when there isn't one.

OR, was one or both of them into drugs and/or child porn? Could one of them have made prior arrangements and sold/traded the child? I'm not necessarily suspecting this to be the case; I just thought of it as a remote possibility and have heard of nothing that might lead to this; however, something IS remiss in their stories and the way the baby 'disappeared'.

Sure, it 'sounds' good that the 'old' great granddaddy wasn't paying any attention to him so there lies the fault. Too good to be true, therefore it isn't.

Just to clarify, I meant the parents saying anything about being worried about wild animals up in the mountains, not LE. We live in the woods, and I spent much time in the woods as a child, making camps and exploring. But it wasn't until I had my children that I now feel anxious or scared when I go into them with the kids and without my husband, bc we do have bears and mountain lions and such. So I am always watching. I just really didn't hear them talk a lot about that, but that could be that they are too upset. The whole thing just isn't jiving with me. I want to believe them, but something is throwing me off here.

Juliet you are right, it WOULD be an accident of course, no reason to cover up an accident. But are the other two children with the mother or father? I read in above comments that they might not have custody of the two children and that they live with their dad, but not sure if that's true. Could it have been an accident but they are currently trying to get custody back or worried they would never see the kids again so they covered up what happened to him as to not have to deal with the legal repercussions of being looked at as negligent? Even so they would have to pass polygraph, and if they both did then it couldn't have happened that way.He could have got shut into the truck by accident, someone could have shut the door while he was in there like you said. Our toddler can't stand in the truck and reach for the door that's wide open and shut it closed as it takes too much strength, but if the door was close enough he might be able to. Covering for that? It's possible.

Is it possible he saw him walk off while he was with mom and they were "exploring" and thought he would be fine until he caught up to him, only to find out he was gone/hurt?

There's so many things. And nothing is too outlandish for me, keep bringing the ideas!!! Feeling "blessed" about making a call is just strange when it has no positive outcome of finding Deorr. Unless he expected search and rescue to find him quickly.

When our oldest "C" was our youngests age (2 1/2, his birthday is 12/26) We went to a local Lowe's store. My husband was chasing him and he was squealing with delight.My husband went down one aisle to catch him at the end of our isle and scare him while the baby, in front of me about 15 feet was in the other. I watched him round the turn knowing my husband was right there, and in the 3 seconds it took for me to get to the end I ran straight into my husband who asked "Where is C?" Our son was gone. I thought he was joking, but he wasn't. He had vanished in a matter of seconds, when we looked.down every aisle and realized we could not find him I went into a SEVERE panic and just cried, while they shut and locked down the store. After 10 minutes went by, my husband was crying too. We were sure maybe someone had grabbed him. I have never experienced the level of terror I felt on that day again, I couldn't breathe. 15 minutes after we last saw him, a clerk comes up walking with him in their arms and hands him over, in which we both cried tears of joy and left everything we were going to buy that day in the cart and walked out. Where was he? Hiding from his Daddy in a model kitchen cabinet. He shut the door and waited to be found not understanding we weren't at home and Daddy didn't know he was hiding. He came out when someone didn't come for him!!Scariest day ever. I try not to be too judgemental, bc it has happened to us, but something isn't making sense. Something about his need to explain the truck, but could that be guilt surrounding something with the truck?? Idk

I am trying to work out how what the parents said can all be true - DeOrr was with grandpa, DeOrr went missing, they searched, they called, dad jumped into his truck, they were lucky and blessed - but also trying to think what they might have left out, what could fit with their words. What if dad had discovered the baby, either in the truck, or on the roadside - that would be real cause for him to feel blessed, and to consider his wife very, very lucky. Is it possible he found the baby, then in a moment of madness, decided to hide the baby for a while, because search and rescue were already on the way, and that would be way more interesting, for a day or two, than camping with grandpa? He could 'discover' or help others discover the baby within a day or two, while he was still alive. It seems possible, except that the baby has not been found, and the dad does come across as having care for the baby, so even if he had done that, he would not let it go on past the point at which the baby could still be found alive. He is so animated in describing search and rescue, though, it does make me wonder if it could have been too much excitement to miss, even if the baby had already been found. I can see why the authorities want to discourage speculation -it soon becomes crazy, but at the same time, it's crazy for them to be saying they do not suspect either parent of a missing toddler, when statistically a parent is most likely to have caused the disappearance.

Hi, anon - I need to catch up with the gone 45 minutes and not suspects AT THIS TIME update - I had wondered if maybe they were actually gone fifty minutes rather than gone fifty yards, because of the way the mother jumped in at that point.

I recognise the terror you felt at losing your toddler in the store - I've had some of those hair-raising moments, too, so yes, I also try not to be too quick in judgement, but we can't help but compare what we either know, or would anticipate our own actions to be, to those of parents in cases such as this. I agree, the baby wouldn't have been let out of sight alone, at least not by the mother, so I don't think that's true. He must have been with grandpa, but I'm not willing to hold grandpa responsible. Does anyone know for sure which grandpa we are talking about? Is it the fit seventy year old, or the eighty-one year old with failing health? Links would help. We know it is a great grandpa to deOrr, and a grandpa to DeOrr's mother, Jessica.

As strange as it is to think a parent could find the child and then leave him there, or know where he is all along it could happen.Look at the Charlie Bothwell case- the FBI was all over that house and didn't find a trace of him until he got loose. And it was the stepmom all along who hid him there. But for what reason?BC search and rescue were already called?To attract national attention and possibly money from a GoFundMe site, or to sell their story and make money off of it?Idk, as out there as all of those conclusions could be, anything is possible.

I know this though, it is FOREVER engraved in my mind the moments before, during, and immediately after finding "C"- I can still envision it in my mind at any time. Which makes all the mixup over who had him, and the statements made after all the more troubling.Idk. Something is being left out.

Ref my post above where I am highlighting several areas of the sheriff's statement; I am dealing with THE FACTS as stated and NOT speculating on what could or could not have happened. Jesus, a thousand things 'could' have happened but they didn't.

We could sit around all day and speculate this could have happened that could have happened; but all we know FOR A FACT, now, is that;

the child was missing a lot longer than we were first led to believe;

the child was NOT left in the hands or care of the grandfather, regardless as to his age or health criteria, or that the parents 'claim' he was supposed to be watching their child when they never placed him in the elder gentleman's hands. Duh... !

There has not been one drop of blood found that would indicate the child was injured, run over, beaten or abused by an abductor or anyone else, OR absconded with by an animal; NOR has there been one shred of clothing, tissue, not even a shoe, a discarded cigarette or soda can, snack rapper, broken down bush or shrubs, or anything else that would indicate the child wandered off or was abducted.

If any blood or tissue has been found on, in, or around the truck, this has not been mentioned. No point in speculating on this possibility when we don't know if this possibility exists. We DO know that a child likely matching toddler DeOrrs' description, and a black truck that could also match the family truck has been described by a clerk at a nearby store. And that's a fact. Daddy DeOrr claims he went to the store much earlier; but then, a liar is a liar. We'll see.

There has been no evidence whatsoever that the child wandered down to the creek or was dumped in the creek. Not one shred. There was only evidence of old cremated remains found near or in the creek that had previously been discarded. It is not unusual for survivors to cast their loved ones ashes to the wind or into a creek. These were NOT DeOrrs' remains. There is no evidence of DeOrr anywhere near or in the creek, nor of having been swept off down river.

Daddy DeOrrs' comments lead me to believe he is nervously lying. Ditto for the mother who will not let loose of little DeOrrs' blankie. And why not? Guilty people do experience guilty grief, do they not? She lied too, saying he never lets his blankie or his other trinkets out of his sight. OH? Then how could it be that his little blankie was found inside the truck but little DeOrr wasn't? huh?

IMO, both are liars; this baby was NOT abducted or kidnapped; he was NOT snatched by a wild animal; he did NOT drown in the creek nor was he thrown into the creek; there is NOT one drop of blood or tissue that indicated ANYTHING happened to this child for miles around; all based on statements made by the Sheriff. NOW, Daddy DeOrr wants the sheriff and searchers to go on searching for an abductor/kidnapper, and for everyone to believe their baby was snatched, when the sheriff knows this did not happen. Facts people, facts, NOT speculation.

BTW, John in his vast body-language experience, has indicated more than once that the stance and posture between the mother and father is suspect and is not good between them. This too, is worthy of being remembered with caution. Just MOO...

Thank you Anonymous at 9:04 for your FACT based opinions- they are much appreciated. It's the fact based opinions that make it hard for me to believe the things that DeOrr Sr. Is saying. But I do want to believe they are telling the truth.

It's ok to brainstorm and keep an open mind.I am not trained in Statement Analysis, but I love to read Peter's blog, and see things through SA.

So yes facts are facts, but you don't need to be rude, we were just talking about it and the possibilities. An open mind remember.Your opinion isn't the only opinion.

And I was conversing with Juliet.Not you.I'm sorry if you thought I was hijacking your facts. I will have to allow my full name on here so we don't get confused with each other lol.

Sorry Anon @10.53, I didn't mean to speak so sharply. Did not mean to sound so critical, was just pointing out the facts which seemed to be being overlooked, that's all. Again, I'm sorry. Forgive. I'll try to do better next time.

I'm sorry as well, Anonymous-no harm no foul! I agree a big red light went off when I read above comments about "exploring" and being possibly a code word for drug use- that is a very good possibility.I am thinking you may be right.It makes a lot of sense.You may be onto something, it would explain a lot.

Just to throw something else into the mix ( i prefer to stick to SA principle's) but, what if DeOrr was never at the campsite. Do we have any independent sightings of him at the campsite, apart from his parents, his Grandfather, and the mysterious (my words) person who was also there?

The grandfather who was quoted in the People article, and who is 70 years old, is NOT the grandfather who was on the camping trip. That guy is the paternal great-grandfather of little Deorr. The maternal great-grandfather of little Deorr is the one who was on the camping trip (Jessica Mitchell's grandfather), and apparently is over 80 years old.

There is word that the friend with Grandpa is a guy in his 30's that is a registered sex offender. There is discussion on a fb group under baby deorr discussion. The grandpa met him at an AA meeting. I cannot remember his name, but it's listed on the fb site.